AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUDGMENT : (PER : SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.)
Petitioner was serving as Senior Branch Manager in Punjab National Bank. He was tried for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was convicted by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI) Uttarakhand / 1st Additional Session Judge, Dehradun, vide judgment dated 31.07.2020 and he was sentenced to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 40,000/-. The employer dismissed him from service based on his conviction. Petitioner filed a Departmental Appeal, which was also dismissed by the Chief General Manager, Human Resources Division, H.O., New Delhi vide order dated 12.02.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner by holding that even though the petitioner’s conviction is challenged in a Criminal Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, however, there is no stay granted against petitioner’s conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned Single Judge of this Court suspended the sentence awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 22.04.2025; petitioner, thereafter, again approached the Appellate Authority by making an application stating that the sentence has now been suspended, however, learned Appellate Authority held that since petitioner’s conviction has not been set aside by Hon’ble High Court, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the matter.
We do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Perusal of record reveals that the order of dismissal was passed against petitioner in terms of Regulation 11 of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977, which reads as under:-
“11. Special Procedure in Certain Cases
Notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 6 or regulation 7 or regulation 8, the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 if the officer employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial.
Provided that the officer employee may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made.”
It is not in dispute that petitioner was given a Show Cause Notice before imposing penalty of dismissal in terms of Regulation 11, however, petitioner did not submit any reply to the notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was languishing in jail at the time when the notice was served upon him, therefore he could not give reply thereto.
A perusal of the order of dismissal passed on 30.09.2020, however, indicates that reply to the Show Cause Notice was given by a lawyer on behalf of the petitioner, and the Competent Authority imposed the punishment after considering that reply.
As per the applicable Regulations, an officer of the Bank can be punished solely on the basis of conviction recorded by a criminal Court.
Admittedly, petitioner was convicted for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore the punishment order, passed by the Disciplinary Authority based on such conviction, cannot be faulted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence imposed upon petitioner by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI) Uttarakhand / 1st Additional Session Judge, Dehradun, has been suspended, therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement.
Perusal of the record indicates that only the sentence given to petitioner was suspended by learned Single Judge of this Court, after passing of the order by the Appellate Authority. Thus, on the date when the matter was considered by Appellate Authority, petitioner’s sentence was not suspended. Even otherwise also, suspension of execution of a sentence places the punishment imposed upon the convicted person in abeyance during pendency of the Appeal. It does not efface the finding of guilt, which continues to operate.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Rani Mondal Saha vs. State of West Bengal and others (Criminal Appeal No. 003342 of 2026, decided on 22.07.2026) has considered the legal implications of suspension of sentence and stay of conviction. Paras 6 and 7 of the said judgment read as under:-
“6.The power exercised by the High Court is traceable to Section 430(1) of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 389(1) of the CrPC. The provision empowers the Appellate Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to order that "the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended" and, where the convicted person is in confinement, to direct his release on bail. The provision thus employs the expressions "sentence" and "order appealed against" separately. In Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (1995) 2 SCC 513, this Court held that the expression "order appealed against" is wide enough to include an order of conviction and that the Appellate Court possesses the power, in an appropriate case, to suspend the conviction itself.
7.The existence of the power to suspend a conviction does not, however, obliterate the distinction between suspension of sentence and suspension of conviction. Suspension of the execution of a sentence places the punishment imposed upon the convicted person in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. It does not affect the judicial finding of guilt, which continues to operate. A stay of conviction, on the other hand, renders the conviction non-operative from the date of the stay and may prevent the legal disabilities or consequences which would otherwise flow from it from operating during the currency of the stay. It does not erase the conviction or render it non-existent. Suspension of conviction is, therefore, a distinct and substantive relief which requires separate consideration and reasons. It cannot follow as an automatic or incidental consequence of the suspension of sentence.”
The Criminal Appeal, filed by the petitioner, is yet to be decided, therefore merely because the sentence has been suspended by Appellate Court will not result in effacing the judicial finding of guilt, which was recorded against him. Petitioner can claim reinstatement and other service benefits available to him in law from the employer only when he is acquitted by the Appellate Court.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.